Thursday, September 29, 2005

In one of life's little ironies, someone who has deceptively posed as member of the Church on this blog has made several (deleted) efforts here to stir up fear about the possibility of child-abusing Satanists posing as faithful members of the LDS Church. Look, this is a dangerous world. There are hypocrites who pose as good members when they in fact are not. We need to be cautious to protect ourselves and our children, and we need to recognize that established safety principles for child protection (e.g., those of the Boy Scouts) are vitally important. Right here in my home town, in the high school my kids attend, the long-trusted police liaison for the high school, the man who had close access to the most troubled and love-starved kids in the school, turned out to be a predator with homosexual leanings who sexually abused many boys. That case was just exposed this year. And Wisconsin is still rocking with the tragedy of sexual abuse from multiple Catholic priests who infiltrated the priesthood and exploited the access their position gave them to abuse young men. (Heterosexual abuse also occurs frequently, but the homosexual version has been particularly traumatic in my part of the world in recent months.) So yes, there are grave dangers when wolves in sheep's clothing are on the prowl.

As for the allegations of ritual child abuse among religious groups (Mormon, Catholics, etc.), this became a very hot topic back in the 1980s. A Satanist scare swept much of the country, not just the Intermountain West. One educator from Wisconsin told me about the big money that consultants were making as they fueled and exploited the scare. They were frequently hired to train educators on the dangers of the occult. Naturally, they drew large audiences - it's much more interesting to hear someone describe shocking stories of burning babies rather than sharing tips on teaching syntax (people still remember the stories about the babies, but when was the last time you or your kids heard anything about syntax?). In saying this, I do not discount that there have been very evil people, including Satanists, who have done evil things. But there has been a great deal of hype and overreaction, including highly publicized stories that turned out to be clearly fraudulent or devoid of any support. And there were "therapists," "experts," and consultants who made big bucks fanning the fires of fear. Ironically, the LDS Church may have set itself up for undue criticism from anti-Mormons by taking sensational allegations of ritual child abuse too seriously. (Note: Allegations need to be taken seriously - and as a former Bishop, I can attest to repeated training about the need to listen carefully to reports of possible abuse and immediately call the Church's child abuse hotline for guidance. My experience in dealing with the folks in Salt Lake on child abuse cases confirmed that Church truly is very serious about dealing with this problem and protecting children.)

For those who wish to delve into this complicated and sometimes disturbing topic, there is a responsibly written article (free from, say, the pornography you might find one some of the anti-Mormon websites that deal with this topic in a way that surely pleases ol' Beelzebub himself). The rather scholarly article is "A Rumor of Devils: Allegations of Satanic Child Abuse and Mormonism, 1985-1994" by Massimo Introvigne, presented at the Annual Conference of The Mormon History Association (MHA), Park City, Utah, May 21, 1994.

If you are interested in this topic, please read the entire article. To whet your appetite, here are two paragraphs from near the end (references deleted):

It is not surprising that anti-Mormons, including the Tanners, use the Satanism scare in Utah (in itself a part of the national Satanism scare) to attack and embarrass the LDS Church. It is, also, not surprising that the same conflict between believers (mostly in the mental health profession) and skeptics (mostly in academic settings and among sociologists) on the factual truth of the survivors' claims, which has been going on at a national level in the United States (with international connections) for more than a decade, has reproduced itself in Utah. What is surprising is that the main religious organization in Utah, the Mormon Church, has apparently decided to align itself with one party in the controversy, and has released official and semi-official documents proclaiming that survivors should be believed. As sociologist Jeffrey S. Victor has observed, the Mormon Church position is somewhat unique. Although individual activists and members of the clergy of many denominations have supported the survivors' claims, so far no Church has ventured to take an official stand. As mentioned earlier, authoritative voices in the Evangelical community, including Christianity Today, have rather sided with the skeptics. In the Roman Catholic Church, the commission appointed by four Vatical Secretariats to examine "cults" and new religious movements decided to hear in a session held at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska on May 10-12, 1991, as the only expert on the Satanism scare, the skeptic Anson D. Shupe, whose report was warmly endorsed by the commission [87]. The attitude of the Mormon Church is, as Victor remarked, "paradoxical", since they are "lending authoritative credibility" to anti-cult and counter-cult sources who normally also attack Mormonism as a "cult" [88]. In the first LDS Church document (unpublished, but mentioned in Bishop Pace's memo) dates back to 1989, it seems that the first interest of the Church on ritual abuse may have been connected to the Lehi case, based on allegations made by children. The concern of the Mormon Church on a sad and widespread phenomenon such as child abuse is understandable, although we have mentioned that child abuse does not appear to be significantly more frequent in Utah than elsewhere in the United States. Nothing in this paper is intended to minimize the very real danger of child abuse, nor to suggest that Churches should not be involved at their best in fighting and preventing this tragedy. It is also possible, as some cases outside Utah seem to suggest, that occasionally abusers scare children by using Satanic symbols and paraphernalia. However, there is no evidence of national or international Satanic conspiracies. What is more dangerous, looking for such conspiracies may lead the efforts astray from the identification of real perpetrators on a case by case basis. It had been suggested that when social workers, therapists and law enforcement officers become too concerned in finding evidence of Satanism, they may end up by making the defense of the guilty abuser easier (and, sometimes, by prosecuting the innocent) [89]. It is also essential that stories told by children about abuse that occurred in the last few weeks be not confused with stories told by survivors about abuses that they claimed occurred decades ago. The two narratives belong to different categories. . . .

At the May 1993 meeting of the Mormon History Association in Lamoni, Iowa, LDS sociologist Armand Mauss noted among other evidences of a Mormon "retrenchment" from the 1960s to the 1990s an increased "susceptibility to fundamentalist 'scare' scenarios." Mauss - who used "fundamentalist" in the national meaning of "conservative evangelicals", as opposed to the Utah meaning of "polygamous splinter Mormon groups" - argued that an "indication that [LDS] church leaders, as well as the folk, might be susceptible to fundamentalist scare scenarios can be seen in the credence which a member of the Presiding Bishopric gave a couple of years ago to stories of satanic child abuse." Mauss, who does not believe that these stories are factually true and rather supports the "general debunking of such satanism stories by social scientists", sees in the church involvement in the Satanism scare evidence of "the process by which folk fundamentalism gets disseminated upward into the leadership echelons and then back downward to the folk with an authoritative aura." Mauss, on the other hand, does not believe that "folk fundamentalism" reflects the collective consensus of the general authorities, nor of the whole Quorum of the Twelve. The lack in recent years of "a full and vigorous First Presidency" has, Mauss thinks, made it very difficult to rein in the "folk fundamentalist" preferences of individual general authorities, but this does not necessarily mean that these preferences are shared by the majority of the brethren. [100] An indication that cautious voices on the Satanic abuse issue also exist among general authorities came from Apostle Richard G. Scott's speech at the General Conference of April 1992. Although Elder Scott deplored the "tragic scars of abuse", he also cautioned against "improper therapeutic approaches," "leading questions," and "excessive probing into every minute detail of past experiences". The LDS Apostle argued that such techniques may "unwittingly trigger thoughts that are more imagination or fantasy than reality. They could lead to condemnation of another for acts that were not committed. While likely few in numbers, I know of cases where such therapy has caused great injustice to the innocent from unwittingly stimulated accusations that were later proven false. Memory, particular adult memory of childhood experience, is fallible. Remember, false accusation is also a sin" [101].

As for those who try to distort the Church's response to the Satanism scare to suggest that we have a serious problem or that the Temple is a Satanic place because of alleged imitation by Satanists, get serious. This is a low and dirty tactic to paint others as evil when evil is what they were fighting.

The Church is not perfect, and there have been lapses among its units in dealing with all sorts of problems, including abuse. I can't accept some of the complaints that critics have made, but there have been abusers and victims. The good news is that the Church is vigorously working to fight such problems. The fact that some of its leaders might have been too inclined to believe some possibly outlandish accusations - if my understanding of the article is correct - can at least be taken as a sign of the sincerity of Church leadership in wishing to protect children and root out evil.

As for comments, the fact that I have raised this topic and provided a resource for further reading does not mean that I will entertain endless RFM allegations of child abuse from Church leaders, links to foul and vulgar sites, pornographic discussions, and the like. Please remember that I have no desire to give more bandwidth to sites aimed at tearing down my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, or His Gospel or His restored Church. Comments with such links will simply be deleted - but you are free to create you own blogs with your own rules.

20 comments:

Isn't it strange that there are so many cases of homosexual molestation, when homosexuals represent about 1% (not 10%!!) of the population? Doesn't that imply that homosexuals are more likely to be abusers?

Hey, if your friend CB can pose a sickening sweet little new member looking for truth, all innocent about them anti-Mormons, just to lure Mormons away, then I guess we need to worry that other spooky followers of Satan might try to pose as real members and might try to desecrate LDS temples by holding "black mass" based on the temple rather than a mass. But it would be very hard to carry out this kind of deception for long and the risks and costs would be high. CB was exposed in a jiffy - I don't think closet Satanists can get very far infiltratinig a church, although the gays in the Catholic priesthood lasted quite a while, it's sad to note - with the help of powerful fellows - much more like a conspiracy. So perhaps there was some substance to the big scare, but it seems mostly hype.

As for spooky anti-Mormons in hypocritical positions attempting to desecrate the Temple, doesn't that happen every General Conference when so-called "ministers" try to "minister to Mormons in love" by yelling, shouting, and waving Temple garments around?

I will give J. Staply a phone call and offer him my actual real name and address and phone number if he has the courage to post his phone number. I'd like to know why I should care that he wants my IP address. Or is this another example of boastful, Mormon coersion? Power tripping psychotics? Manipulative and dare I say evil crusaders of lies?

Jeff, when I created my new blog, I had no idea that you would start to delete all my comments simply because my profile links to the new honest blog. I thought you wanted me to be honest and so I came clean and let you know the real purpose: a staggering and truthful feature length documentary. If you guys loved Farhenheit 9-11 you are really going to love this one. I am the real Michael Moore.

Cory/Andy: I beg to differ. I don't think your new blog is very honest. It has too many twisted-truths, half-truths, and outright lies.

I have volunteered at veteran organizations for several years. I recognized something in you (and other RfM'ers) that is common to combat veterans. That is PTSD, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

I'm not going to tell you what originally clued me, because then it will just go into the "playbook" as "don't do this."

But, if your November 2004 archives are anywhere near accurate, that confirmed my original guess.

Social workers and others in the mental/emotional field have made great strides in identifying PTSD and helping people overcome it.

I had a form of PTSD due to a traumatic injury in childhood, and some abuse in my life, some of it even at the hands of (probably well-meaning) overbearing church members.

I didn't think certain episodes I had were really "flashbacks" because I didn't hallucinate that I was actually in the past. But, I was doing what I call "replaying the tape in my mind" of the trauma and stressful events, and I was trying to "edit the tape" by imagining (and sometimes acting out in private) what I "should have" said and done.

The attempts at "editing the tape" never worked for me. No matter how much I rehearsed what I _should_ have said and done, the original tape kept playing over in my mind.

I finally found some peace (not a complete cure, I'm still working on it) when I went to LDS Family Services, and to Heavenly Father and asked to have the power of the Atonement remove the effects of the trauma and abuse.

Have you caught yourself replaying mental tapes of past stressful/traumatic events and then trying to "correct/edit" the tape in your mind? Have you ever blamed yourself by thinking "If only I had done such-and-such, he/they wouldn't have been able to hurt me." Do you find yourself trying to insert scenes of what you "should have done" into those memory tapes? Do external things (words, smells, pictures, events) sometimes trigger memories, and you find yourself going into a rage just because a memory resurfaced again? I've gone through all those things.

If you have, then get to a professional, because that can be cured, and you CAN find peace. I know combat veterans who have suffered for decades and finally find a measure of peace when they go for help.

Back in the 60's and 70's health care professionals didn't know how to identify or treat combat vets with PTSD, but now there are more information and programs and treatments for both combat trauma and abuse trauma. They are amazingly similar, because of the horror, and the inability of the victims to control the situation they were in.

Even in the cases where there is a clear "bad guy" (the enemy in war, a child molester, an abusive parent, an abusive church member or leader), the victim **CAN** find healing. The healing of the victim is not dependent on the punishment or repentance of the perpetror.

If you deny the existance of God, and Christ's infinite atonement that paid not only for all sins, but for all suffering at the hands of sinners, it _might_ be harder or longer for your recovery, but agnostics and atheists still **CAN** be helped by professionals if you find one that is knowledgeable, caring, and can get in tune with your particular situation.

Yes, bad things do happen in the tru church. It's been that way since Cain slew Abel. The scriptures contain plenty of examples of people screwing up. And I've related a few instances of (relatively minor) suffering at the hands of church members. But regardless of the number or severity of messed up people, the Gospel is true, and the church is true.

You're free to disagree, of course.

But dude, it takes one to know one, and I can see how you're still filled with the poison and toxin of past abuse and having the wounds fester all your life. THAT is what I think is fueling your rage, and that of many (not all) RfM'ers.

No matter what you "prove" here or on your blog or in your mocumentary, those memory tapes are going to keep replaying in your mind, and stirring you up to rage. The solution or resolution to your pain does not lie in what anyone else does or believes. You can't control the minds or actions of others.

The resolution to your pain lies in YOU. You can't erase the memory tapes, but you CAN control the tape-player so they don't keep popping up on the TV screen of your mind. And, you can control your REACTIONS to them when those tapes accidentally get played.

For me, focusing on the fact that Christ paid for my suffering, and paid for their sins, helps me. When I think "Someone's gotta PAY for that!" I try to remember that Christ already did. Figuratively speaking, I take the check that Christ wrote in Gethsemane, and which he signed on the cross, and take it to Heavenly Father for healing.

Now if you want to find a counselor (or "consultant" as I call them, which sounds better to my macho-male ego) who can help you work though that philosophically without the religious context, then go for it, because that can work too.

A very good book on how to mentally survive the abuse of others is an ancient Roman text "The Enchiridion" by the Stoic philosopher Epictetus. Do a search on the title, and you can easily find 2 or 3 translations into English online. It's public domain. You can also buy it online at Amazon and other places, or download from Project Gutenberg.

Epictetus, or the Stoic philosophy, is amazingly Christian without the heavy religious context. But Epictetus actually helped me be a better Christian.

Thanks for thinking that I am the writer of the blog you refer to as having a November 2004 entry. I am sadly not half the writer that man is. But I apreciate it and he does in fact link to your blog which is how I found you. But I am not him.

But if you want to psych me out... I did in fact serve in Vietnam and have been diagnosed as having PTSD but also a mild case of AntiSocial Personality Disorder. Surprise surprise.

If you have the right to hand out books to strangers... I surely have the right to express my views to you all.

Jeff -- you seem determined to delete even the most innocent of my posts... please wait until Indy sees this... I hate him confusing me with other anti-mormons. I want him to know that there are more than one of us out there.

PS Jeff... you surprised me. I thought you would deny the Pace memo -- what you did was minimize child ritual abuse... I smiled. You folks are icky.

no dinky link hink: Thanks for joining the party. "Can't tell the players without a program."

"Welcome home." Thanks for your service, and all that. I admire people who survived the University of Southeast Asia.

But then what you've really said is that you're not the same guy who originally posted here as Cory/Andy, but have just taken over the Andy nick or are using other blog personae. Are you his illustrator? I think that would put you in the right age range to be a Vietnam Vet.

1. You realize that killing the prophet didn’t stop it; outlawing polygamy didn’t stop it; that fake salamander deal didn’t even put a dent in it. The only thing left to do is PANIC, and shotgun blast it with everything you can think of, no matter how pathetic the argument, after all, at least the faithless will listen, right?

2. It just cuts you to the core to think of the millions of Mormons who pay all that tithing, donate all those hours of time and labor, and sacrifice so much for their religion. How could anybody be so stupid?

3. You know better than to believe in a self proclaimed, money-digging sexually deviate pervert, and you don’t think anybody else should either.

4. You love to attack the weakness of its leaders, because you believe they should be absolutely perfect.

5. Your testimony crumbled, because you built it on the dust of steel (non-stainless of course), elephants, and horses, and everybody else is just plain silly for believing in faith and obedience, like the bible teaches. Intellectual knowledge is so much better, and you are so much smarter than everyone else.

6. You just love telling others what they believe according to your “research”. You love reading other peoples’ minds.

7. You like to impress people by using the same lame arguments and augmenting them with philosophical fluff, when in reality, the only thing that is impressive is your vocabulary.

8. It makes you feel so superior to make fun of people for their heartfelt religious convictions. You love name calling, and you have an unnatural attraction for sheep and robots.

9. You couldn’t cut it as a Mormon, because of your weakness, so you gave up, blamed it on the hierarchy, and want to make sure you get even.

10. Because of your own experience, you’ve concluded that God just doesn’t influence people through the Holy Ghost, He doesn’t answer anyone’s prayers, and it is just impossible to know of spiritual things. Therefore, no one else can have these experiences, because since you haven’t experienced them, they do not exist.

Speaking of fear... I am no longer allowed to post with my login here because Jeff does not want others to see my blog -- which contains the truth about Mormonism.

Even though Jeff probably enjoys seeing his comments climb and climb because you all have me to attack... I am going to invite the Mormophobic post for a discussion on my blog -- but I cannot tell you what it is... But I am going to repost your Mormophobic comment on my blog, which out of respect to our host will remain nameless here... it is his little party after all... but if you search a line from the mormophobic post in Google -- in quotes -- you'll find my blog...

I will entertain your attacks there and invite you to come...

I especially invite Indy... the ironic thing is that while I am not Yuruban... men he seems to have a lot of interest in... I am Igbo, from Nigeria, which was colonized by the British... so thank you for the comment about my vocabulary, English is not my first language. But anyway, when I visit Indianapolis, my tar black skin will be like a magnet to Indy... and he will offer me a book of Mormon... and I promise that when he asks me if I speak French... well, he will be suprised.

And since you all seem so curious about my name, my real name is Amadi.

Please check my real blog for a line by line reflection on the mormophobic comment --

Goodbye.

I shall miss you, but since Jeff fears my login, and obviously the truth, well, my work here is done.

you are so ridiculous, dude. i dont mean to be insulting in any way when i say that. it's just so hard to not laugh at this whole thing. the funniest thing is when anyone comes on here and insults jeff. seriously, jeff is the man. sometimes he gets a little extreme in his views, but i rarely meet people as considerate and fair as he is. by claiming otherwise just shows your ignorance and makes me want to waste less time w/ you...

there would be nothing wrong w/ your blog if it was CIVIL and didn't have PORNOGRAPHY all over it (at least, that's what jeff claims is all over it - i didn't actually go cuz frankly i don't care that much). you really need to get a life man. get out and have some fun. i frankly think i am wasting too much time myself by commenting here to give you that advice. go outside!! enjoy God's creations.

BOM Indy, same for you, dawg....you really weird me out by spending all that time searching different blogs for anddy/cb's background. really, who cares? in a normal world, he wouldn't lie to us about being an investigator, and you could just ask him his background and he would tell you honestly. all this searching is pointless. if he wants to hide, let him hide. not worth the effort, in my opinion, alllll these comments, some so long, just the bickering back and forth. it's not what the gospel is about, nor the book of mormon. just seems like a waste of time to me...

Amadi/CB/Chris/Andy or whoever you are, thanks at least for sharing a little more about yourself and where you are coming from.

I'm sorry if you really think I'm minimalizing child abuse. I abhor it and have fought against in several ways with some success. But that does not mean we have to accept allegations that have been proven false or become hysterical about alleged Satanists. If they are real, let's root them out legally and sanely and protect our children - but do you REALLY want me to believe that you're waging you little battle against the Church because of your tender desires to protect children? Isn't the whole point that you think you can slander the Church by suggesting that it's an unsafe place?

If parents want their children to be safe and happy, there are few better things they can do than to become active in the Church and help their children live the standards of the Gospel. Always be watchful and recognize that there are wolves in sheep's clothing, but the Church is one of the best insitutions ever for families and young people. Active LDS kids grow up with a lot more power to resist the evils of the world, lower risks of getting STDs or drug addicitons, better health, and so forth - and a higher likelihood of raising sound families of their own. They are not entering the dangerous dark world painted by anti-Mormons.

It's interesting to see how the same pages from the anti playbook get played over and over, often with the same wording. There are new nicknames and new anonymouses (anonymice?) on other threads who appear to be either new incarnations of either Cory, his other blogger friend (the Vietnam Vet) or other playas from RfM.

I gotta admire people like BYU-G who plod through all the scientific evidence. And I sympathize with his (so labeled) former fundamentalist view of the gospel. I too tripped up when I expected others to fit into my rigid expectations of what church leaders and members should do and be. It took me a long time to realize that I couldn't nor shouldn't enforce my expectations on others (even when I'm right! :-)

And I do sympathize with Cory and other RfM'ers who've suffered real hurt or discrimination at the hands of church members. I've been there. It can be humiliating, devastating, and testimony destroying.

I need to be more humble. I think most of us get, or would get, a kick or a charge out of "making a convert" either to the church, or away from it in the case of the anti's. But it shouldn't be that way. As believers, we should do everything out of love for people, as in loving everyone as an individual, and loving them as a child of God, and loving everyone because we're all in the same boat on this planet. We're all fallen, and all a million miles away from God.

But the anti's (specifically those who actively work against the church), and most of the RfM'ers, don't seem to be motivated out of love when trying to "save" people from LDS beliefs or the LDS church.

I think most anti-mormon _Christian_ activists really do want to "save us from the errors of our beliefs". Yet the RfM'ers seem to be motivated out of bitterness caused by their own experiences, and they attack the church to hurt it, not to "save us."

Cory's entry on his blog about wanting to "'f' with the Mormons", made his intentions clear. Though I'm not sure what his Vet friend's motives are yet. And I think this blog has attracted more wolves in sheep clothing, and/or Cory is back for another try just being anonymous this time. The whining and phraseology is just too RfM-ish.

To the anonymous who is weirded out by me: Sorry. But I was told I was not welcome in their sandbox, that pro-Mormon or apologetic information is not welcome on their boards, and then some of them came here and defecated in this sandbox while I'm playing in it. Bad form.

I didn't "out" Cory or identify him publicly. I gave his blog URL to Jeff, and I think Daniel Peterson. After all, he linked to Mormanity and to my blog from his blog. His blog _is_ public, and if you click-click-click a few times, you can find his full name.

I only mentioned his first name, which is a common one. (Ok, I mentioned the 1st two letters of his blog url, just to let him know.)

Sometimes we forget that blogs are public. If you don't want something in your blog diseminated further, it's a bad idea to put it on a blog. The net is about diseminating information.

But I've respected his wish to keep his identity hidden, just as I'm not ready to go public yet either. But Jeff does have my real name and phone #, and an email address for me. If you contact the stake presidency here, they know the guy who's been giving out foreign language books.

Jeff's been a lot more tolerant of the posting of anti views on his blog than I would be. And he's extremely more tolerant of polite anti questions or accusations than the RfM board is of apologetic information. So I think a little perspective and truth is called for when one of the RfM'ers comes and defecates here.

It's one thing to put forth your views, but it's pretty low-down trying to trip people up by faking a "de-conversion".

i agree. it's pretty low. i wasn't trying to put you on the defensive bom indy. i'm not very weirded out by you, either. i just think all this "playing in the sand box" isn't too productive. whenever i stop by for a minute or two to see what's up w/ jeff and his awesomeness, i see all this bickering back and forth. that's what bugs me. not that you may have been inconsiderate in discussing cb/andy's blog. i couldn't really care less about his blog, don't have a desire to visit it. unless by some miracle he had something interesting or cordial to say, i would have little interest in hearing what he has to say at all, let alone speak of him or talk to him. just seems like a waste of time.